Are stages 2-3 and 1-4 adiabatic in the OTTO cycle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JakePearson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cycle Otto
AI Thread Summary
In the OTTO cycle, stages (2-3) and (1-4) are not adiabatic; they are isochoric, meaning they occur at constant volume. The adiabatic processes are represented by stages (1-2) and (3-4). Adiabatic processes involve no heat exchange, while isentropic processes are always adiabatic, but not all adiabatic processes are isentropic. The discussion highlights the importance of distinguishing between adiabatic and isentropic processes in thermodynamics. Understanding these differences is crucial for accurately interpreting the OTTO cycle.
JakePearson
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
hey guys, just wanted to know, in the graph of the OTTO cycle in the link

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/thermo/design-library/otto/Otto-Pv-diagram.gif

are stage (2-3) and (1-4) adiabatic or not, if so why are they

the reason i ask is that i have a graph showing that these stages are adiabatic, however, adiabatic processes are where no heat is exchanged QIN = 0
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Adiabatic and isentropic are one and the same thing. The adiabats on your diagram are 1-2 and 3-4. The other two, 2-3 and 1-4 are isochoric (constant volume).
 
Last edited:
kuruman said:
Adiabatic and isentropic are one and the same thing.
Isentropic processes are always adiabatic. Adiabatic processes, however, are not always isentropic. A non-isentropic adiabatic process, such as free expansion of a gas, should not be referred to as adiabatic, in my view. However, I seem to have lost that battle.

AM
 
Andrew Mason said:
Isentropic processes are always adiabatic. Adiabatic processes, however, are not always isentropic. A non-isentropic adiabatic process, such as free expansion of a gas, should not be referred to as adiabatic, in my view. However, I seem to have lost that battle.

AM
Thanks for pointing out the subtle difference. I should have confined myself to answering the original question instead of trying to generalize.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top